In re Henry

New York Supreme Court

In re Henry

2 Liquor Tax Rep. 394

DecidedAugust 23, 1900

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Liquor Tax Rep. 394 (In re Henry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Henry, 2 Liquor Tax Rep. 394 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Bischoff, Jr., J.

In view of the evidence produced for the respondent, I cannot hold that the preponderance of proof is with the petitioner touching the violations charged. There is ample evidence to support the claim that the premises, when exposed to view, were sufficiently exposed, and I find no intrinsic probability which should call for my giving the greater credit to the witnesses for the petitioner upon the direct issue of fact as to the,sales of liquor, or the failure to expose the premises during the hours stated in the statute.

Motion denied, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bischoff, Jr., J.

In view of the evidence produced for the respondent, I cannot hold that the preponderance of proof is with the petitioner touching the violations charged. There is ample evidence to support the claim that the premises, when exposed to view, were sufficiently exposed, and I find no intrinsic probability which should call for my giving the greater credit to the witnesses for the petitioner upon the direct issue of fact as to the,sales of liquor, or the failure to expose the premises during the hours stated in the statute.

Motion denied, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Liquor Tax Rep. 394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-henry-nysupct-1900.